Downloading Consciousness!

60 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
It isn't possible yet, but scientists are hopeful.


Downloading Consciousness

I have my doubts as to whether they could download a humans consciousness to a computer, but at least we will have cooler, robotic pets?

  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Great, the prison of the future.

    Report to cell block 13 for extraction.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603045].message }}
  • Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

    It isn't possible yet, but scientists are hopeful.


    Downloading Consciousness

    I have my doubts as to whether they could download a humans consciousness to a computer, but at least we will have cooler, robotic pets?

    Please PM me when this is ready.

    I could frickin' use some right now.
    Signature

    Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603053].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    downloading consciousness is still only the stuff of science fiction
    Indeed .... some consciousness I dare say, would be just more digital dust to clean off your hard drive.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603121].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
      It is well to remember that even if you could do this it would just be making a copy and should never be thought of as immortality. It's not the original you in the real sense of the word.
      Signature

      Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603421].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

        It is well to remember that even if you could do this it would just be making a copy and should never be thought of as immortality. It's not the original you in the real sense of the word.
        What If we put the hard drive in a pickle jar?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603434].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          Originally Posted by yukon View Post

          What If we put the hard drive in a pickle jar?

          We just ruin some otherwise perfect pickle juice.


          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603468].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

            It is well to remember that even if you could do this it would just be making a copy and should never be thought of as immortality. It's not the original you in the real sense of the word.
            Hmmm, ok, l got the impression when they developed the human interface thing, that it would suck out our consciousness and pop it into the computer one?

            Claude might have some ideas?

            If human consciousness is electrical signals then it should be possible, but if it is more than that, then apart from bringing back your pet cat virtually, that might be it?

            If they can transfer all electrical signals from one brain to another, then pet cloning will take another step forward, or backyard?

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603585].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author yukon
              Banned
              Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

              Hmmm, ok, l got the impression when they developed the human interface thing, that it would suck out our consciousness and pop it into the computer one?

              Claude might have some ideas?

              If human consciousness is electrical signals then it should be possible, but if it is more than that, then apart from bringing back your pet cat virtually, that might be it?

              If they can transfer all electrical signals from one brain to another, then pet cloning will take another step forward, or backyard?




              Please don't end statements with a question mark.

              I'm getting mixed signals?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603595].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
              Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

              Hmmm, ok, l got the impression when they developed the human interface thing, that it would suck out our consciousness and pop it into the computer one?

              Claude might have some ideas?

              If human consciousness is electrical signals then it should be possible, but if it is more than that, then apart from bringing back your pet cat virtually, that might be it?

              If they can transfer all electrical signals from one brain to another, then pet cloning will take another step forward, or backyard?
              Our mind isn't the electrical signals in the brain. It is the routes the signals take. That's what makes us ...us.

              It's impossible to suck out our consciousness and put it into a computer. I'm having difficulty even seeing that as a real question.

              Theoretically, you can create a duplicate consciousness, if you perfectly map someone's brain, and reproduce that map in a computer. But even then, it wouldn't be identical. Much of what the brain does is chemical. How would that be duplicated?

              Let's say that problem was overcome.

              Then you could create unlimited exact duplicates of your brain/consciousness.

              But you would still be here, in your living brain.

              And everything the brain does is physical. Physical electro-chemical changes along the structured neural pathways. You cannot upload your mind to a computer, for the same reason you cannot upload your arm. The mind is a product of the brain. In fact, the mind is what the brain does. We call the activity of our organic brain..."mind".

              That's not a guess. It's why every change to the brain, changes how we think. You cannot damage part of the brain without effecting the mind. If the mind were somehow separate, we would still be fully conscious, even without a brain.
              Signature
              One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

              What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603626].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                If the mind were somehow separate, we would still be fully conscious, even without a brain.
                Doesn't your very existence prove this statement correct?
                Signature

                Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603673].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                  Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

                  Doesn't your very existence prove this statement correct?
                  I love it. I can just imagine you running through my posts, thinking..." What can I use as an insult to Whitacre".


                  I do the same thing....even without a brain.
                  Signature
                  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                  What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603678].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                  Our mind isn't the electrical signals in the brain. It is the routes the signals take. That's what makes us ...us.

                  It's impossible to suck out our consciousness and put it into a computer. I'm having difficulty even seeing that as a real question.

                  Theoretically, you can create a duplicate consciousness, if you perfectly map someone's brain, and reproduce that map in a computer. But even then, it wouldn't be identical. Much of what the brain does is chemical. How would that be duplicated?

                  Let's say that problem was overcome.

                  Then you could create unlimited exact duplicates of your brain/consciousness.

                  But you would still be here, in your living brain.

                  And everything the brain does is physical. Physical electro-chemical changes along the structured neural pathways. You cannot upload your mind to a computer, for the same reason you cannot upload your arm. The mind is a product of the brain. In fact, the mind is what the brain does. We call the activity of our organic brain..."mind".

                  That's not a guess. It's why every change to the brain, changes how we think. You cannot damage part of the brain without effecting the mind. If the mind were somehow separate, we would still be fully conscious, even without a brain.
                  Sounds like it is a head on a platter then?

                  Put a head, on life support and the human should survive for long enough, for science to play catch up.

                  Unless the human goes ga ga first.

                  Robocop didn't seem to work out, so probably not a good idea.


                  Originally Posted by yukon View Post

                  Please don't end statements with a question mark.

                  I'm getting mixed signals?
                  Ok!

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603694].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                    Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                    Sounds like it is a head on a platter then?

                    Put a head, on life support and the human should survive for long enough, for science to play catch up.

                    Unless the human goes ga ga first.

                    Robocop didn't seem to work out, so probably not a good idea.
                    Actually, placing a brain in an android body may some day be possible. But who knows?

                    The brain ages, just like the rest of us. I have no idea how that could be solved.
                    Signature
                    One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                    What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603707].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                      Actually, placing a brain in an android body may some day be possible. But who knows?

                      The brain ages, just like the rest of us. I have no idea how that could be solved.
                      To keep the brain interested in sex for example you would need to add some Sin Apps.

                      Don't blame me, Kurt wrote that.
                      Signature

                      Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603723].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                        Actually this raises some interesting speculations. We all know that the brain controls the body by sending out bio chemical signals to make your arm move for example or operate your vocal chords to articulate what you are thinking.

                        So the question is, what triggers the bio chemical signals?, Is there a bio electrical matrix behind it. Are we essentially a bio electrical field matrix in the first place which then directs to bio chemical?

                        If you entertain that idea then perhaps you are moving into territory that suggest that true consciousness is possibly a separate entity.
                        Signature

                        Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603750].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                          Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                          Actually this raises some interesting speculations. We all know that the brain controls the body by sending out bio chemical signals to make your arm move for example or operate your vocal chords to articulate what you are thinking.

                          So the question is, what triggers the bio chemical signals?, Is there a bio electrical matrix behind it. Are we essentially a bio electrical field matrix in the first place which then directs to bio chemical?

                          If you entertain that idea then perhaps you are moving into territory that suggest that true consciousness is possibly a separate entity.
                          You have the order reversed. Our mind doesn't trigger the bio-electrical signals. The bio-electrical signals deliver us our perception of consciousness. The signals come first. And they are a reaction to the stimulus around us.

                          And that's why, if you change the signals (by damaging or stimulating brain neurons) our consciousness changes. The consciousness is a result of the bio-chemical changes, not the cause of them.
                          Signature
                          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                          What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603779].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                            You have the order reversed. Our mind doesn't trigger the bio-electrical signals. The bio-electrical signals deliver us our perception of consciousness. The signals come first. And they are a reaction to the stimulus around us.

                            And that's why, if you change the signals (by damaging or stimulating brain neurons) our consciousness changes. The consciousness is a result of the bio-chemical changes, not the cause of them.
                            Interesting article here, admittedly from the Huntington post, suggesting it goes deeper than that. Why Your Brain Is A Quantum Computer
                            Signature

                            Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603805].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                            You have the order reversed. Our mind doesn't trigger the bio-electrical signals. The bio-electrical signals deliver us our perception of consciousness. The signals come first. And they are a reaction to the stimulus around us.

                            And that's why, if you change the signals (by damaging or stimulating brain neurons) our consciousness changes. The consciousness is a result of the bio-chemical changes, not the cause of them.
                            Whew. Okay - the world is normal again. I can disagree once more.

                            Nothing about bio-chemical explains consciousness. It explains things like thinking, emotions toward ideas, etc. Thinking and feeling are not consciousness, though. Consciousness is a completely different phenomenon than thinking. Thinking can be explained right down to the steps in the biological process. Consciousness can only be described and theorized. The process, nature, etc. are unknown.
                            Signature

                            Sal
                            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                            Beyond the Path

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603852].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                              Whew. Okay - the world is normal again. I can disagree once more.

                              Nothing about bio-chemical explains consciousness. It explains things like thinking, emotions toward ideas, etc. Thinking and feeling are not consciousness, though. Consciousness is a completely different phenomenon than thinking. Thinking can be explained right down to the steps in the biological process. Consciousness can only be described and theorized. The process, nature, etc. are unknown.
                              Not unknown. It's a combination of short term memory, instinct, and thinking. Daniel Dennett explains it pretty well in Consciousness Explained.

                              And...what is consciousness? If you take out every component of thinking; Memory, feeling, instinct, cognitive activity...what's left? How can you be conscious without any thought process?


                              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post


                              What about plants? Science has proven over and over and over again - even when scientists have been attempting to disprove - that plants are aware of their surroundings, yet they have no discernible brains.
                              No. plants react to stimulus, and follow their programmed activity for survival. Just like every animal that has no brain. There is nothing that shows awareness. Tissue reacts to stimulus, even plant tissue. That doesn't make it aware.

                              Why would scientists try to prove that plants aren't aware? The whole premise of science is discovery, not to try to prove anything.



                              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                              Bottom line is that consciousness seems to be a quality solely belonging to biological entities - and it cannot be located within the body of the conscious being.
                              Sure it can. It's in the brain.

                              If you take a part of the human body away, any part but the brain, the person is still the person. Take away any part of the brain, and that person changes. And not for the better.

                              Amputate an arm, and the person is unchanged. But the arm is never conscious. It never moves on it's own. The severed limb isn't aware of anything.

                              But, any disruption to brain activity alters the person with that brain. The consciousness is what the brain produces. No other part of the body is aware.

                              Am I sure? Pretty much. But a good argument based on proven facts, would persuade me.
                              Signature
                              One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                              What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603928].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                Not unknown. It's a combination of short term memory, instinct, and thinking. Daniel Dennett explains it pretty well in Consciousness Explained.

                                And...what is consciousness? If you take out every component of thinking; Memory, feeling, instinct, cognitive activity...what's left? How can you be conscious without any thought process?

                                I'm not impressed with Daniel Dennett's theories. A lot of cognitive scientists aren't. Of course - it's science, so there will always be more than one school of thought.

                                Consciousness encompasses sentience. Sentience cannot be explained by any mix and match of biology.
                                Signature

                                Sal
                                When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                                Beyond the Path

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603951].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                  Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                  I'm not impressed with Daniel Dennett's theories. A lot of cognitive scientists aren't. Of course - it's science, so there will always be more than one school of thought.
                                  .

                                  That's the antithesis of science. There shouldn't be any school of thought. And all roads of study should lead to the same conclusions..from every angle of inquiry.

                                  If there are disagreements, it should e pretty easy to prove at least one of the ideas as wrong. These is no room for opinion in science.

                                  By the way, did you read Consciousness Explained? To an ordered mind, flaws in reasoning should stick out fairly well. Unless the premiseseses ( )are faulty.
                                  Signature
                                  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                  What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603962].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                    Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                    ... To an ordered mind, flaws in reasoning should stick out fairy well. Unless the premiseseses ( )are faulty.
                                    One should never use science and fairy in the same sentence. It tends to ruin any authority you may have had.

                                    There is no room for fairies in science, lol!


                                    Terra
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10604085].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                      Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                      One should never use science and fairy in the same sentence. It tends to ruin any authority you may have had.

                                      There is no room for fairies in science, lol!


                                      Terra
                                      Good point. I had to read my post three more times before I saw it. Thanks, young lady.
                                      Signature
                                      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                      What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10604096].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                        Good point. I had to read my post three more times before I saw it. Thanks, young lady.
                                        You're welcome!

                                        I wanted to help in a fun way after having a terrible day.

                                        I hope I didn't come off as being mean, I'm still sort of boiling after my doctor visits today.

                                        Terra
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10604101].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                          Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                          You're welcome!

                                          I wanted to help in a fun way after having a terrible day.

                                          I hope I didn't come off as being mean, I'm still sort of boiling after my doctor visits today.

                                          Terra
                                          Terra; "I hope I didn't come off as being mean"

                                          Are you serious? You? Mean? Riffle is just mad because he didn't catch it, and you did.

                                          Terra; 1
                                          Riffle; 0


                                          Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                          There is no room for fairies in science, lol!
                                          Terra; Why are you limiting Dan Riffle's career choices?
                                          Signature
                                          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                          What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10604111].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                            Terra; "I hope I didn't come off as being mean"

                                            Are you serious? You? Mean? Riffle is just mad because he didn't catch it, and you did.

                                            Terra; 1
                                            Riffle; 0




                                            Terra; Why are you limiting Dan Riffle's career choices?
                                            Haha! Thanks for the laughs! They truly are the best medicine and laughing doesn't mess with my mind.


                                            Terra
                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10604121].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                    Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                    That's the antithesis of science. There shouldn't be any school of thought. And all roads of study should lead to the same conclusions..from every angle of inquiry.

                                    If there are disagreements, it should e pretty easy to prove at least one of the ideas as wrong. These is no room for opinion in science.

                                    By the way, did you read Consciousness Explained? To an ordered mind, flaws in reasoning should stick out fairly well. Unless the premiseseses ( )are faulty.
                                    I started to. I wasn't impressed. The premises weren't all holding together logically.

                                    Science always has two (or more) schools of thought until something can be proven beyond a shadow ..........

                                    However, there are also ideas that are not the authority, published and distributed answer simply because of funding and professional jealousy. That's always been that way and it always will.

                                    It's hard to say if the science I studied was the linguistic branch of cognitive sciences, or the cognitive branch of linguistic sciences, but from what I know of the subject, consciousness has not been explained yet. I don't care what that book says. Won't be the first book written by someone who is just plain wrong. Won't be the last.
                                    Signature

                                    Sal
                                    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                                    Beyond the Path

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10604172].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                    Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                    Not unknown. It's a combination of short term memory, instinct, and thinking. Daniel Dennett explains it pretty well in Consciousness Explained.
                                    He did no such thing. Despite the pretentious title penned nearly a quarter of a century ago Dennet, primarily a philosopher not a scientist, solved no such issue and his arguments have been disputed

                                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consci...ined#Reactions

                                    Scientists continue to grapple with that issue

                                    Why Great Minds Can't Grasp Consciousness

                                    https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/consciousness

                                    The hard problem | The Economist


                                    No serious person takes Dennet at having solved or explained any such thing. Frankly anyone claiming to have explained such a thing at this point or that we know enough to make these sweeping statements is blowing smoke - most likely something they rolled themselves with suspect substances.


                                    If you take a part of the human body away, any part but the brain, the person is still the person.
                                    Obviously not true. I've never known anyone have their heart taken away and remain the same person.

                                    Amputate an arm, and the person is unchanged
                                    Have you never read anyone that lost limbs,eyesight or even go through a prolonged sickness explain how the experience changed THEM (the person). from their entire world view, to their sense of humor to how they deal with others?
                                    Signature

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10605112].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author discrat
                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post



                That's not a guess. It's why every change to the brain, changes how we think. You cannot damage part of the brain without effecting the mind. If the mind were somehow separate, we would still be fully conscious, even without a brain.
                This is up for debate. And a matter of fact some highly reputable Scientists might disagree in some respects.

                There is medical terminology explaining it like Neuroplasticity. Basically through "Mindful Awareness" and through very focused behaviors people like victims of Stroke are able to actually form new Neural Pathways that once thought couldn't be done before to compensate for disabled functionality.

                Rehab victims that have paralysis of one side of the body showed this to be true. By utilizing very focused behaviors thru intense therapy the victims have actually engaged different parts of the Brain to take over parts that have been damaged.

                If someone got in an auto accident and became paralyzed on the right side, recruiting of neural fibers through intense therapy on the right side can occur ( as the left side of the brain has been damaged which controls the right side)

                OCD is another field where neural pathways can actually be developed through intense "Mindfullness" to alleviate the debilitating symptoms of this dreaded disease.

                Fascinating stuff, really.

                Basically we are talking about physically (and mentally) damaged brains and through intense work and using their "Minds" people have actually changed the physicality of the Brain. Actually changed the Biological Wiring and the Neuron Make up of this magnificent organ. And different Areas of the Brain taking over functions that once thought were impossible so the human can function.

                Essentially, the Brain says where there is a will there is a way LOL
                Signature

                Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10604344].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                  Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                  To keep the brain interested in sex for example you would need to add some Sin Apps.

                  Don't blame me, Kurt wrote that.
                  LOL, and l have seen a sexed up head, in Animator 2 l think it was called, he did need help, but let's just say that there is more than one way to get ahead.

                  Sorry!

                  Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                  Interesting article here, admittedly from the Huntington post, suggesting it goes deeper than that. Why Your Brain Is A Quantum Computer
                  nonlocal," I refer to the finding in physics that particles once connected retain their connection and influence upon each other even at a distance--they are said to remain "entangled."
                  Gee this reminds me of Princeton's experiments with controlling computers at great distances, etc.

                  Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                  One of the things I have always noticed is that it feels like I have two minds, a duality of consciousness. We all know that emotions and outbursts due to them are due to bio mechanical processes. But, at the same time I am just merely, passively observing this, completely oblivious, non judgmental and outside of it all, just observing. Two sorts of consciousnesses going on at the same time, a physical, reactionary one and one completely removed.

                  I know you may have trained your biochemical reactions not to trigger that often with practice but I'm not relating this to that other mind at all as it feels like one of observation only and total non interference.

                  I'm sure others here may have experienced this?
                  Yes, we do have two, and not the subconsciousness and conscious parts, but something else.

                  Higher self and the ego.

                  The ego side is for survival, and tends to develop at age 5, and doesn't grow much past that point.

                  The higher self, is more the observer, or understands the whole thing.

                  And as such, can calmly observe what we go through, good or bad.

                  So can we recreate a brain, and transfer all of this over, don't know.

                  But someone who trys, will probably have to get a Physicist on board as well?


                  Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                  I'm not impressed with Daniel Dennett's theories. A lot of cognitive scientists aren't. Of course - it's science, so there will always be more than one school of thought.

                  Consciousness encompasses sentience. Sentience cannot be explained by any mix and match of biology.
                  No, that could also mean that teleportation, (which completely destroys a particle and then recreates it) could flop in regards to living organisms?

                  Teleport a slug and get a dead slug on the other end?

                  Time will tell.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10604390].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                    Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post





                    No, that could also mean that teleportation, (which completely destroys a particle and then recreates it) could flop in regards to living organisms?

                    Teleport a slug and get a dead slug on the other end?

                    Time will tell.

                    Holy smokes, Shane. That one will take more time at the cinder block than I wanna spend on the idea. Since teleportation has only been a flop so far, I guess we've got some time before we have to worry about it.

                    Energy can't be destroyed - only transformed, and teleportation would seem to involve the dismantle but also reconstruction of the same person's molecules - not a substitution of them, so I'm thinking that might be beside the point. Who knows, though. I really doubt that we'll ever have teleportation during my lifetime so it won't be me trying to figure out that one.
                    Signature

                    Sal
                    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                    Beyond the Path

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10606352].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                      Holy smokes, Shane. That one will take more time at the cinder block than I wanna spend on the idea. Since teleportation has only been a flop so far, I guess we've got some time before we have to worry about it.

                      Energy can't be destroyed - only transformed, and teleportation would seem to involve the dismantle but also reconstruction of the same person's molecules - not a substitution of them, so I'm thinking that might be beside the point. Who knows, though. I really doubt that we'll ever have teleportation during my lifetime so it won't be me trying to figure out that one.
                      Yes, Sal, you where more right that l was.


                      Current teleportation involves entanglement, to effectively have the same particle in two places at once, and use the computer to figure out where they go.

                      Which says that entanglement is real, and has been proven in a lab.

                      But l won't say anymore, or try to!

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10606423].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                      Holy smokes, Shane. That one will take more time at the cinder block than I wanna spend on the idea. Since teleportation has only been a flop so far, I guess we've got some time before we have to worry about it.

                      Energy can't be destroyed - only transformed, and teleportation would seem to involve the dismantle but also reconstruction of the same person's molecules - not a substitution of them, so I'm thinking that might be beside the point. Who knows, though. I really doubt that we'll ever have teleportation during my lifetime so it won't be me trying to figure out that one.
                      In theory, we would have to come up with a *****REAL***** supercomputer, the likes of which has NEVER been even attempted in history, and it would have to use an energy source not yet created, to successfully transport a living creature, or even go at the speed of light, for that matter.

                      I mean IMAGINE, as the distance, size, or complexity, of an organism increases, the speed needed to do that with a resolution of less than 1 second increases by a fantastic amount. And considering all the operations that happen in a living organism every second, YIKES! As for the scans that must be done? Even something working at the speed they imply in startrek would be far too slow. And this isn't even taking into account heizenbergs principles that star trek gives a nod to. Look long enough, and they talk about the "heizenberg compensator"!!!!!

                      As for supercomputers? It would have to everything all at once, and couldn't rely on things merely being in sequence, as they do in computers. Computers cheat all over the place. Accounting systems, for example, would have random errors THROUGHOUT if not for the fact that they have locks which force a wait for updates, and cache things.

                      And I doubt they transported ANYTHING, though they claim to have transported like one atoms "information". Teleportation Milestone Achieved BIG DEAL. One atom is relative childsplay. One atom with NO connection or reliance on ANYTHING versions TENS of BILLIONS of atoms that have connections on the sub atomic level and moment by moment may change, and have connections that are a small portion of a nanometer that are dependent on sub nanosecond time increments. We don't have power that is fast enough. And how could we even see what is going on? CT and MRI scans seem fine, but no color(Any color is added externally, and not because it was detected.), and the resolution is poor, and they still have you stay still during the process, and wait in case they have to do it again. Some stuff STILL requires autopsies to diagnose.

                      It reminds me of an episode of texas ranger. A guy become very angrywhen he spotted a scar on a guys arm that just healed in a fashion that would make ANY doctor beyond ecstatic. An employee was shocked and said WHY are you upset? It is just a little scar! The guy replied SUPPOSE that was the guys brain? EXACTLY! A scar seems to minor, but sometimes such a minor defect could mean DEATH!

                      So yeah, I don't think it will happen within the next hundred years, if at all. OH, and if they do this for food, ****CAREFUL****! They once tried to manufacture a molecule in a simpler way. Earlier tests indicated SUCCESS! People took it, and it seems to be all SUCCESS! So WHAT happened? Mysterious deaths started happening. They traced it to the method. They looked at it with newer technology, and it WASN'T the same.

                      Notes on the Tryptophan Disaster

                      And I always wondered about the full ban. They banned EVEN the properly made stuff used for DECADES, because a group of idiots created a poison that SEEMED like it! MAN...:

                      CERI: Dean Manders Tryptophan Article from <i>Social Policy</i>

                      Anyway, some chemicals would be DEADLY POISONS if changed a little bit! Look at some of the vitamin Bs. Change things a little, and you could have cyanide or even sodium cyanide. Look at sugars. HECK, ALL carbs! Change a carb just a LITTLE, and it becomes a simple sugar. Change it just a little more, and it becomes an alcohol.

                      Steve
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10606816].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                        In theory, we would have to come up with a *****REAL***** supercomputer, the likes of which has NEVER been even attempted in history, and it would have to use an energy source not yet created, to successfully transport a living creature, or even go at the speed of light, for that matter.

                        I mean IMAGINE, as the distance, size, or complexity, of an organism increases, the speed needed to do that with a resolution of less than 1 second increases by a fantastic amount. And considering all the operations that happen in a living organism every second, YIKES! As for the scans that must be done? Even something working at the speed they imply in startrek would be far too slow. And this isn't even taking into account heizenbergs principles that star trek gives a nod to. Look long enough, and they talk about the "heizenberg compensator"!!!!!

                        As for supercomputers? It would have to everything all at once, and couldn't rely on things merely being in sequence, as they do in computers. Computers cheat all over the place. Accounting systems, for example, would have random errors THROUGHOUT if not for the fact that they have locks which force a wait for updates, and cache things.

                        And I doubt they transported ANYTHING, though they claim to have transported like one atoms "information". Teleportation Milestone Achieved BIG DEAL. One atom is relative childsplay. One atom with NO connection or reliance on ANYTHING versions TENS of BILLIONS of atoms that have connections on the sub atomic level and moment by moment may change, and have connections that are a small portion of a nanometer that are dependent on sub nanosecond time increments. We don't have power that is fast enough. And how could we even see what is going on? CT and MRI scans seem fine, but no color(Any color is added externally, and not because it was detected.), and the resolution is poor, and they still have you stay still during the process, and wait in case they have to do it again. Some stuff STILL requires autopsies to diagnose.

                        It reminds me of an episode of texas ranger. A guy become very angrywhen he spotted a scar on a guys arm that just healed in a fashion that would make ANY doctor beyond ecstatic. An employee was shocked and said WHY are you upset? It is just a little scar! The guy replied SUPPOSE that was the guys brain? EXACTLY! A scar seems to minor, but sometimes such a minor defect could mean DEATH!

                        So yeah, I don't think it will happen within the next hundred years, if at all. OH, and if they do this for food, ****CAREFUL****! They once tried to manufacture a molecule in a simpler way. Earlier tests indicated SUCCESS! People took it, and it seems to be all SUCCESS! So WHAT happened? Mysterious deaths started happening. They traced it to the method. They looked at it with newer technology, and it WASN'T the same.

                        Notes on the Tryptophan Disaster

                        And I always wondered about the full ban. They banned EVEN the properly made stuff used for DECADES, because a group of idiots created a poison that SEEMED like it! MAN...:

                        CERI: Dean Manders Tryptophan Article from <i>Social Policy</i>

                        Anyway, some chemicals would be DEADLY POISONS if changed a little bit! Look at some of the vitamin Bs. Change things a little, and you could have cyanide or even sodium cyanide. Look at sugars. HECK, ALL carbs! Change a carb just a LITTLE, and it becomes a simple sugar. Change it just a little more, and it becomes an alcohol.

                        Steve
                        They also had buffers in Star Trek to store the man or whatever, til it could safely go wherever.

                        So in Star Trek they are effectively recreating all of the atoms in a living organism, by using entanglement, and then scanning all of the, (l think that COSMOS, said we have about 8 trillion) atoms, to figure out where they all go, and then putting them together on a planet.

                        While avoiding the odd martian fly, he, he!

                        Yes, unless we find some shortcuts, it could be up to 300 years before we get a handle on that.

                        Almost fits in with Star Trek dates, lol.



                        Although "Enterprise" only used it for non living things, and only used it for living in emergencies.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10606913].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                  Originally Posted by discrat View Post

                  This is up for debate. And a matter of fact some highly reputable Scientists might disagree in some respects.

                  There is medical terminology explaining it like Neuroplasticity. Basically through "Mindful Awareness" and through very focused behaviors people like victims of Stroke are able to actually form new Neural Pathways that once thought couldn't be done before to compensate for disabled functionality.

                  Rehab victims that have paralysis of one side of the body showed this to be true. By utilizing very focused behaviors thru intense therapy the victims have actually engaged different parts of the Brain to take over parts that have been damaged.

                  If someone got in an auto accident and became paralyzed on the right side, recruiting of neural fibers through intense therapy on the right side can occur ( as the left side of the brain has been damaged which controls the right side)

                  OCD is another field where neural pathways can actually be developed through intense "Mindfullness" to alleviate the debilitating symptoms of this dreaded disease.

                  Fascinating stuff, really.

                  Basically we are talking about physically (and mentally) damaged brains and through intense work and using their "Minds" people have actually changed the physicality of the Brain. Actually changed the Biological Wiring and the Neuron Make up of this magnificent organ. And different Areas of the Brain taking over functions that once thought were impossible so the human can function.

                  Essentially, the Brain says where there is a will there is a way LOL
                  My father-in-law has been a runner all of his life. He is 80 and still runs.

                  A few years back, he went for a routine physical before he left for a trip to see Mt. St. Helens.

                  There was something wrong with his heart and he was sent to the hospital immediately.

                  What they found truly confounded and amazed all of the doctors! All of his major arteries to his heart were blocked with plaque, but...

                  his body grew secondary vessels around the clogged parts and blood was still flowing.

                  It wasn't enough though, so he did have emergency surgery. He didn't end up taking his trip, obviously. But if he had, while climbing Mt St.Helen's, they predicted he would have a major coronary and dropped dead.

                  Sooo, if the body can create new "parts" for passage, then why not the brain?

                  Right?


                  Terra
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10604901].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author yukon
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                    My father-in-law has been a runner all of his life. He is 80 and still runs.

                    A few years back, he went for a routine physical before he left for a trip to see Mt. St. Helens.

                    There was something wrong with his heart and he was sent to the hospital immediately.

                    What they found truly confounded and amazed all of the doctors! All of his major arteries to his heart were blocked with plaque, but...

                    his body grew secondary vessels around the clogged parts and blood was still flowing.

                    It wasn't enough though, so he did have emergency surgery. He didn't end up taking his trip, obviously. But if he had, while climbing Mt St.Helen's, they predicted he would have a major coronary and dropped dead.

                    Sooo, if the body can create new "parts" for passage, then why not the brain?

                    Right?


                    Terra
                    That's pretty much the same thing that happens to some stroke survivors.


                    My wife had two strokes a couple of years ago. The doctor said since she was younger than most people that have strokes the body would most likely reroute blood around the blockage in her brain. She's ok now except she can't walk for long periods of time. When she first had the strokes she had to have physical therapy to learn how to walk again.

                    It's weird how the brain turns On/Off different body parts.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10604957].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                  Originally Posted by discrat View Post

                  This is up for debate. And a matter of fact some highly reputable Scientists might disagree in some respects.

                  There is medical terminology explaining it like Neuroplasticity. Basically through "Mindful Awareness" and through very focused behaviors people like victims of Stroke are able to actually form new Neural Pathways that once thought couldn't be done before to compensate for disabled functionality.
                  Everything you just posted is true, and doesn't argue with anything I said.
                  Neuro-plasticity happens after there is trauma to the brain. It's an adaption process.

                  But brain damage changes the person. Neuro-plasticity helps them on the road to becoming whole again.

                  Remember, the brain is a body part, and living tissue can heal itself to a degree. Although with brain trauma, it's more a matter of rewiring new pathways more than healing damaged areas of the brain.

                  There are cases of patients having an entire hemisphere of their brain removed, and after extensive therapy, they become fully active people.
                  Signature
                  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                  What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10605143].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                    Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                    Everything you just posted is true, and doesn't argue with anything I said.
                    Neuro-plasticity happens after there is trauma to the brain. It's a adaption process.

                    But brain damage changes the person. Neuro-plasticity helps them on the road to becoming whole again.

                    Remember, the brain is a body part, and living tissue can heal itself to a degree. Although with brain trauma, it's more a matter of rewiring new pathways more than healing damaged areas of the brain.

                    There are cases of patents having an entire hemisphere of their brain removed, and after extensive therapy, they become fully active people.
                    Hmmm, better not mention the phantom limb concept then?

                    Yes, l know psychological, but maybe it is the part of our minds that still perceives the energy construct that the original arm used?

                    Ok, hate to do this, but l will give Claude, a worm.

                    At least for a while.

                    Brain Activity After Death -- Natural Health Blog

                    Well, we can ignore this part....

                    All of these theories presuppose that though the brain is shutting down -- although it's undergoing physiological changes -- it still has some viability, that it still functions at some level. But new research flushes this idea down the toilet, because at least one subject retained total recall of what happened to her on the operating table when she had absolutely zero measurable brain activity.
                    But maybe it is like Man Made Global Warming and it is hidden away somewhere?

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10605195].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                      Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                      Hmmm, better not mention the phantom limb concept then?

                      Yes, l know psychological, but maybe it is the part of our minds that still perceives the energy construct that the original arm used?
                      It isn't any energy construct. It is fact that nerves will sense signals at any point, and may for your ENTIRE LIFE. Anyone with a pinched nerve has encountered that phenomena. And that CAN present any signal or sensation that would normally be felt, EVEN if the part has been lost or is without any feeling.

                      As for brain waves? They are NOT thoughts, like computer data, or even a program, like a computer program. THINK ABOUT IT! Even if it WERE, it would be totally unreadable as the brain could be doing hundreds or hundreds of thousands of things at once. NOPE, the brain waves are more like the radio signals that come from a computer, and just noise masquerading as a signal.

                      And HOW could they download a consciousness? Could they EVEN, in the same fashion, download a computer program? NOPE! When they can demonstrate THAT, maybe I would then believe that they could do it with a human. And they are NOT talking about downloading a program, but basically the entire drive, programs, and data.

                      Steve

                      Steve
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10605827].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                        It isn't any energy construct. It is fact that nerves will sense signals at any point, and may for your ENTIRE LIFE. Anyone with a pinched nerve has encountered that phenomena. And that CAN present any signal or sensation that would normally be felt, EVEN if the part has been lost or is without any feeling.

                        As for brain waves? They are NOT thoughts, like computer data, or even a program, like a computer program. THINK ABOUT IT! Even if it WERE, it would be totally unreadable as the brain could be doing hundreds or hundreds of thousands of things at once. NOPE, the brain waves are more like the radio signals that come from a computer, and just noise masquerading as a signal.

                        And HOW could they download a consciousness? Could they EVEN, in the same fashion, download a computer program? NOPE! When they can demonstrate THAT, maybe I would then believe that they could do it with a human. And they are NOT talking about downloading a program, but basically the entire drive, programs, and data.

                        Steve

                        Steve
                        Ok, Steve, but Claude seems to be the resident expert on brain activity, (that wasn't a joke) so we will have to get his slant on this, well after Easter.

                        But this isn't an official site, so, it can't be taken at face value, (l am too lazy to find a university site) but still, it might raise a good question.

                        If zero brain wave or electrical activity isn't present in some, but they are still, well, we will say dreaming, then how can they dream?

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10606050].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                          Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                          Ok, Steve, but Claude seems to be the resident expert on brain activity, (that wasn't a joke) so we will have to get his slant on this, well after Easter.
                          I don't know that there are many experts on the brain on this planet but I am absolutely sure there are none on this forum. Bare minimum we'd have to see some medical degrees and showing some credentials in that particular area.

                          If zero brain wave or electrical activity isn't present in some, but they are still, well, we will say dreaming, then how can they dream?
                          the argument of brain dead being total inactivity is some what of a red herring. The reports that are particularly interesting are of people fully cognizant of things going on around them and in some cases beyond what they would normally hear or see wide awake . You don;t have to have zero brain activity to be unconscious. Once you fall below a certain level you hear no evil , see no evil and feel no evil.

                          simply citing that "aha there was or might have been some activity" doesn't explain that level of consciousness.
                          Signature

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10606144].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                      Shane;
                      Here is the first paragraph in that...um..."article".

                      "According to the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association, death is legally defined as the "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem." So how, then, do we explain the fact that up to 20 percent of those who die and then are brought back to life report that they retained consciousness even during the near-death experience? How do we explain the common phenomenon of seeing the black tunnel with the light at the end and the gathered dead relatives? Is consciousness a function of the seemingly inert brain, or does it reside somewhere outside of the "vital functions of the organism"?"

                      Because there is a vast difference between a near death experience, and a ...death...experience. In one case you are unconscious (with your heart stopped ), and in the other case, you are dead.

                      It truly fascinates me that there still seems to be the inability by many (including the authors of this 'article") to distinguish between unconscious and dead.

                      Near death means clinically dead. Heart has stopped, or breathing has stopped (or both). But there is still plenty of brain activity.

                      Brain dead means that the brain neurons have degraded enough so they are no longer capable of making connections. Then the person is dead. That person no longer exists. Everything that makes that person ...that person, is now gone. Nobody in the history of this planet has ever come back from brain death. And the way to determine brain death is to do two EEGs, 24 hours apart. If there are no longer any brain waves...that person is gone.

                      It is impossible for a person to breath under their own power, and be brain dead.

                      It is possible for a person to be in a deep coma, and have very little brain activity. That's why the brain stem must be checked as well. And that's why there are two EEGs.

                      Remember; Near death = NOT DEAD.

                      Brain death = DEAD.
                      Signature
                      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                      What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10606098].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    OH NO! Ah gee. Holy crap. I HATE this. But......gak, gag.............

    I have to agree with Claude. Sob.

    You can't transfer consciousness because consciousness is not merely a the sum of what you think. Nobody even knows exactly what consciousness is or how it works.

    Consider the following points.

    If consciousness was an only and complete matter of being a sum of how and what you think -- your computer is already a conscious entity.

    Everything in this universe is energy. Solid, etc is an illusion to us - we and everything else is nothing but bundled energy. Yet (and I will qualify this -- as far as we know or can tell) only biological entities have consciousness. Are rocks, tables, or trucks conscious? Consciousness is more than the physical parts of the brain or their products.

    What about plants? Science has proven over and over and over again - even when scientists have been attempting to disprove - that plants are aware of their surroundings, yet they have no discernible brains.

    Bottom line is that consciousness seems to be a quality solely belonging to biological entities - and it cannot be located within the body of the conscious being. If the ability to actually continue the consciousness rather than just duplicate it and hope to have set up paths that will continue to function in replica of the original, it will take learning to develop continuance of biological entity itself.

    People fear the hell out of death and have been looking for ways to extend the lifespan since time began...........I don't think that quest will ever end as long as we are mortal.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603760].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
    You Nancy. You deleted your post.
    Signature

    Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603799].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

      You Nancy. You deleted your post.
      I re-read Sal's post, and realized that I was making an unnecessary point.

      It couldn't have been up for more than 30 seconds.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603806].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        I couldn't have been up for more than 30 seconds.
        That's what Cheryl told me, but I don't see how your erectile dysfunction is germane to the conversation at hand.
        Signature

        Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603816].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

        Interesting article here, admittedly from the Huntington post, suggesting it goes deeper than that. Why Your Brain Is A Quantum Computer

        This guy is trying to combine quantum entanglement with how the brain works.
        I can't say that he is wrong with 100% certainty. But quantum entanglement is only on a very very very very sub atomic level. It's a theory. The brain works on a molecular level.

        It's like trying to explain how the solar system works, by explaining how an atom works.

        The author is an advocate of the Quantum Mind idea. Although he is not entirely alone, he is nearly so.
        Signature
        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

        What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603819].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          This guy is trying to combine quantum entanglement with how the brain works.
          I can't say that he is wrong with 100% certainty. But quantum entanglement is only on a very very very very sub atomic level. It's a theory. The brain works on a molecular level.

          It's like trying to explain how the solar system works, by explaining how an atom works.

          The author is an advocate of the Quantum Mind idea. Although he is not entirely alone, he is nearly so.
          One of the things I have always noticed is that it feels like I have two minds, a duality of consciousness. We all know that emotions and outbursts due to them are due to bio mechanical processes. But, at the same time I am just merely, passively observing this, completely oblivious, non judgmental and outside of it all, just observing. Two sorts of consciousnesses going on at the same time, a physical, reactionary one and one completely removed.

          I know you may have trained your biochemical reactions not to trigger that often with practice but I'm not relating this to that other mind at all as it feels like one of observation only and total non interference.

          I'm sure others here may have experienced this?
          Signature

          Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603855].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

            One of the things I have always noticed is that it feels like I have two minds, a duality of consciousness. We all know that emotions and outbursts due to them are due to bio mechanical processes. But, at the same time I am just merely, passively observing this, completely oblivious, non judgmental and outside of it all, just observing. Two sorts of consciousnesses going on at the same time, a physical, reactionary one and one completely removed.

            I know you may have trained your biochemical reactions not to trigger that often with practice but I'm not relating this to that other mind at all as it feels like one of observation only and total non interference.

            I'm sure others here may have experienced this?
            Actually, I experience this constantly. As the observed and the observer. My efforts have been to concentrate on being the observer...the one watching my own thought process, rather than the one thinking it.

            Maybe everyone thinks like this. But I know that the greatest salespeople I've ever met, told me that they share this "secondary objective awareness". It makes them much better negotiators, and better able to plan their next move.

            You have to understand how small the brain's neurons are, how many trillions of combinations there are. It feels like we are apart from our brain.

            Doesn't it feel like your consciousness inhabits your whole body? You think about moving your arm...and it moves.

            When you dream, doesn't it seem like you are no longer in your body? These are sensations we all have, I think.

            But the physics remains. Only by physical changes in our brains do we change how we think. And there is no escaping that reality.

            We take drugs that effect our brain,and we get high. We slow the brain's processes, we get stupid. We shut down certain areas of the brain, with a strong magnetic field, and we change as a person.

            Poke a certain part of the brain with a weak current, and we relive a memory. Stimulate another part of our brain, and we feel like someone is standing next to us. Deaden another part of the brain, and we believe everyone else isn't real.

            These experiments are repeatable, and the results are always the same. Our brains are not where our mind lives. Our brains produce our mind.

            But I understand, it's completely counter intuitive. We don't feel like we are our brain. We feel like a completely separate entity.

            There are several books by neuro-scientists that explain every part of our mental processes, and the biological basis for everything we think. Of course, nobody knows everything. But we really know quite a lot. "WE" mean neuro-scientists, not me. I just read a lot as part of my work.
            Signature
            One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

            What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603921].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

              Actually, I experience this constantly. As the observed and the observer. My efforts have been to concentrate on being the observer...the one watching my own thought process, rather than the one thinking it.

              Maybe everyone thinks like this. But I know that the greatest salespeople I've ever met, told me that they share this "secondary objective awareness". It makes them much better negotiators, and better able to plan their next move.

              You have to understand how small the brain's neurons are, how many trillions of combinations there are. It feels like we are apart from our brain.

              Doesn't it feel like your consciousness inhabits your whole body? You think about moving your arm...and it moves.

              When you dream, doesn't it seem like you are no longer in your body? These are sensations we all have, I think.

              But the physics remains. Only by physical changes in our brains do we change how we think. And there is no escaping that reality.

              We take drugs that effect our brain,and we get high. We slow the brain's processes, we get stupid. We shut down certain areas of the brain, with a strong magnetic field, and we change as a person.

              Poke a certain part of the brain with a weak current, and we relive a memory. Stimulate another part of our brain, and we feel like someone is standing next to us. Deaden another part of the brain, and we believe everyone else isn't real.

              These experiments are repeatable, and the results are always the same. Our brains are not where our mind lives. Our brains produce our mind.

              But I understand, it's completely counter intuitive. We don't feel like we are our brain. We feel like a completely separate entity.

              There are several books by neuro-scientists that explain every part of our mental processes, and the biological basis for everything we think. Of course, nobody knows everything. But we really know quite a lot. "WE" mean neuro-scientists, not me. I just read a lot as part of my work.
              I'm still having trouble getting my consciousnesses around this. For a start we have the chicken and the egg problem, what comes first, to my mind it must start with a spark or bio electricity to trigger any bio-chemical reactions, there must be initiation. process, the reaction to that is of course biochemical. I cant conceive that bio-chemical mechanical activity works entirely on it's own without something sparking, initiating or directing it's actions.

              As for the reactions to prodding and stimulations on the brain to evoke memories or sensations I have no problem with that, even taking parts away. All that does is render the host, incomplete, controllable, inoperable or severely restricted. in physical thinking or physical activity.

              The consciousness or bio electrical matrix may just be unable to interface with the host.and the host to a large extent loses any awareness of it's presence.

              Yes, I know, that's becoming a little esoteric. So, my main question here, what triggers bio mechanical impulses to physically think and to do things if you take away any outside stimuli?
              Signature

              Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10604158].message }}
              • Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                ... outside stimuli?
                I guess if I am conscious of anythin', by whatever process, there is a difference between an awareness of (an' a reaction to) stuff that is not me an' stuff which is more introspective in nature.

                But wherein lies the difference beyond a technicality?

                Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                Yes, I know, that's becoming a little esoteric. So, my main question here, what triggers bio mechanical impulses to physically think and to do things if you take away any outside stimuli?
                Think about a kiss.

                It is equally a stimulus an' a deeply personal experience.

                Beyond the mechanical touch of molecule on molecule there is potential for all shades of interpretation, whether the fact of that touch is an affectionate nip on the cheek or a de-fluffin' of the stomach wall c/o lust's capacity for protuberant excess.

                These are wild extremes of touch, an' I exagerrate the latter for a purpose.

                There is fact of stimulus, for sure, evidenced molecule to molecule from wherever outside of us it has come, but what we may make of this is far less certain.

                Mood is right, you offer yourself up for penetration, an' invite a change of stimulus — but what determines that?

                Why not also an instinctive desire to pull away, because euuuk?

                Prolly we could find some way of analysin' precisely which tongue or cheek parts made contact, but that would never begin to answer the question of how it felt, either as a sensation or how we interpreted it.

                For me, that is the coolest thing about bein' conscious, such as I am.

                I understand there is immutable evidence necessary to provoke whatever I got into registration mode, but what I register has more scope for mutability because I know we do not all feel the same about the same stuff (or, on a purely individual level, feel the same about certain stuff forever).

                What is weird is, I got no one here to kiss me right now, no material stimulus.

                Sure, I could go fetch some tangible object an' pretend — mebbe a coupla frankfurters an' a flappa orange peel — but if I lay back an' summon a phantom appendage, I figure I got way more goin' on there.

                I do not wish this to sound lewd, but I figure this imaginary tongue got way more motive power in terms of producin' a material effect than any amount of genuinely contactful frankfurter/peel combo.

                Gimme 20 minutes, an' an immaterial stimulus gonna produce very material effects.

                So what is that about?

                I guess it is the essence of what underlies our every activity an' transforms raw sensation into perception, speculation, an' alla that conceptual stuff.

                If I am conscious, figure I can manufacture an' manipulate stimuli in ways that touch on material fact.

                So I am gonna go find a frankfurter now an' get real.

                It may be the one weapon I have in the eternal battle against total bodily phantom tongue awareness download.
                Signature

                Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10604251].message }}
  • Way I see it, older interpretations view the body as a repository for some kinda essence.

    Prolly this is closer to a religious rather than a scientific view (if I can polarise stuff in such a simple fashion without bein' slammed intellectually or spanked by a mod), which is super weird cozza how it offers up the possibility that robots could house any such essence or spirit.

    More recent thinkin' on consciousness suggests it arises from bodies (of matter) insteada bein' simply contained by 'em — more along the linesa what Claude is sayin'.

    This more 'material' consciousness seems strangely less transferable to robots than the more spiritual-feelin' essence.

    Confused as f*ck, I am comin' round to the Bored Celestial Bee Theory.

    She is the only sentient bein' in the cosmos, an' she is bored an' alone.

    Alla the people an' alla the mooses an' alla the cute baby animals are but empty vessels through which she buzzes at lightnin' speed.

    All matter is, to her, but a vast Hadron collider in which she experiences no collisions, no conflict, an' jus' buzzy buzzy buzzes around an' around.

    For the briefest millifilament of nanotime, she animates Doom of Circumference known as Claude, before passin' on to Whatto, Fearo, Suzanne, Taggo, Ozi — an' alla the other people who think they are people (an' mooses who think they are mooses).

    A slip of a millinano later, she is back inside Claude after zippin' through every person, every marsupial newt-thing — an' an illusion of individual an' concurrent consciousness is brought to bear upon the world by the velocity of her wingsy beatsy.

    Seems kinda stoopid now, but when I was a kid gettin' all excited about some dumb show on TV, I never knew the images of all the fluffy rabbits an' their cutesy friends were just a single dot goin' way too fast for me to follow.

    *sniff*

    Please do not die, little bee.

    We're all kinda dependin' onya.
    Signature

    Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10603826].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

    It isn't possible yet, but scientists are hopeful.


    Downloading Consciousness

    I have my doubts as to whether they could download a humans consciousness to a computer, but at least we will have cooler, robotic pets?

    If experiments have been ongoing that might explains a lot of posts upstairs
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10604992].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ploppi
    Do you mean memories? I'm sure that one day a computer that thinks for itself will be made but isn't ones conscience governed by outside influences and our upbringing and lives which in turn makes our conscience what it is today?
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10606919].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by Ploppi View Post

      Do you mean memories? I'm sure that one day a computer that thinks for itself will be made but isn't ones conscience governed by outside influences and our upbringing and lives which in turn makes our conscience what it is today?
      Conscience and consciousness are two different things.


      con·science
      ˈkän(t)SHəns/
      noun
      an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

      con·scious·ness
      ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/
      noun
      the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10606935].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author discrat
        As soon as computers can experience depression, elation, bi polar etc... the sooner I will be convinced that Computers will totally take over human existence.

        Here is the thing...some of the greatest inventions, discoveries, accomplishments etc...were done so when humans were operating on sub standard performance; i.e. not "optimal overdrive". Something that Computers have not been able to do

        Many times these sub standard performances or sub standard conditions can be a catalyst for creativity
        Signature

        Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10606961].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author yukon
          Banned
          Originally Posted by discrat View Post

          As soon as computers can experience depression, elation, bi polar etc... the sooner I will be convinced that Computers will totally take over human existence.

          Why would anyone want to build something that will fail on purpose?

          If I was building an AI/robot I wouldn't program it to have problems, I would make it a point to avoid problems (debugging).
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10606977].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by yukon View Post

            Why would anyone want to build something that will fail on purpose?

            If I was building an AI/robot I wouldn't program it to have problems, I would make it a point to avoid problems (debugging).
            Actually, discrat DOES have a kind of point. NON chemical depression is based on the inability to hit benchmarks. They are set based on personal expectation or comparison. Things are designed by knowledge of, and experiencing a disability of some sort. If a computer never encounters either, and has no knowledge of cancer, it may forever know the cure for cancer, and never release it!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10616514].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ploppi
    In some ways we are robots.

    People who do a job for example a law officer or bank loan clerk or tax man or shop keeper has a conscience and would like to give the loan to the person without money to help them or to not arrest someone or to not ruin someones life and make them homeless by making them pay a tax bill but their consciousness prevents them from doing that because they are aware of their surroundings and job description.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10606994].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Originally Posted by discrat View Post

      As soon as computers can experience depression, elation, bi polar etc... the sooner I will be convinced that Computers will totally take over human existence.

      Here is the thing...some of the greatest inventions, discoveries, accomplishments etc...were done so when humans were operating on sub standard performance; i.e. not "optimal overdrive". Something that Computers have not been able to do

      Many times these sub standard performances or sub standard conditions can be a catalyst for creativity
      A bottle of champagne might work?


      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10607676].message }}

Trending Topics